Reading: Koslowski on Selective Migration
04 01, 15 09:31 Filed in: Reading
An old friend, Rey Koslowski, is stopping by today for a late lunch and generally hanging around while he is in the Boston area. Rey and I were on the faculty of Rutgers-Newark a few years back, and I have always been fascinated by his work in transnational crime and border issues -- all the more so given the emergence of homeland security and immigration policy as key areas for policy and public administration studies. I found one of his recent publications on “selective migration” policies to be particularly interesting given its relevance to my upcoming course on business-government relations.
In “Selective Migration Policy Models and Changing Realities of Implementation” [International Migration, 52 (3) 2014: 26-29], Rey describes three models countries have used to deal with promote “selective immigration” -- that is, to attract (or at least not repel) human capital deemed desirable (e.g., scientists, engineers, ICT professionals, etc.). While the state plays the central role in Australia’s policy, a “neo-corporatist” model with considerable corporate and labor involvement has emerged in Canada, and a “market-oriented, demand-driven” approach is found in the US. After describing each model as an ideal-type, Rey provides a very insightful comparison that indicates a trend favoring adoption of the US model.
I find the article interesting on a number of levels. Although immigration is a major issue in US domestic politics today, I have to admit to only a superficial understanding of the details, and Rey’s overview of these models help frame an important aspect of the controversies that seems hidden in the fog of rhetoric we get through the mass media. The US model, especially when put in comparative perspective, also reinforces our basic understanding of business-government relationships, and I have already integrated this article into the course syllabus for the coming semester.
On a more general level, there is something to be said for the US model being an example of how American policymaking works in general, for the fact is the model represents an emergence of policy (through manipulation and tactical implementation) in lieu of actual policymaking. Our policy on selective migration is really not a policy at all, but an accreted reaction to the breakdown of our policymaking system. Thus, the “practice” of immigration policy implementation has become the “model” by filling in the gaps created by the broken policymaking formalities and the dynamics of the global economy that abhors a policy vacuum. Those who like their policymaking to be well structured and logically reasonable see the emergence of the US model as an indication of failure -- but the fact that policymakers in both Australia and Canada are considering a shift from their more orderly “point”-based systems indicates that perhaps we ought not be so harsh in our judgment about our broken system.
I find the article interesting on a number of levels. Although immigration is a major issue in US domestic politics today, I have to admit to only a superficial understanding of the details, and Rey’s overview of these models help frame an important aspect of the controversies that seems hidden in the fog of rhetoric we get through the mass media. The US model, especially when put in comparative perspective, also reinforces our basic understanding of business-government relationships, and I have already integrated this article into the course syllabus for the coming semester.
On a more general level, there is something to be said for the US model being an example of how American policymaking works in general, for the fact is the model represents an emergence of policy (through manipulation and tactical implementation) in lieu of actual policymaking. Our policy on selective migration is really not a policy at all, but an accreted reaction to the breakdown of our policymaking system. Thus, the “practice” of immigration policy implementation has become the “model” by filling in the gaps created by the broken policymaking formalities and the dynamics of the global economy that abhors a policy vacuum. Those who like their policymaking to be well structured and logically reasonable see the emergence of the US model as an indication of failure -- but the fact that policymakers in both Australia and Canada are considering a shift from their more orderly “point”-based systems indicates that perhaps we ought not be so harsh in our judgment about our broken system.
blog comments powered by Disqus